Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BLD20061067.pdf
•'c. 1-6, STATUS: ISSUED 6/6/2007 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 ST H AVENUEPHONE: (425) 77N 0220 - FAXM 42D 7WA022120 % 001 100 Expiration Date: 6/6/2008 Parcel No: 00937900000600 REGAL HOMES REGAL HOMES REGAL HOMES 2306 1191-H ST SW 2306 1 19'P H ST SW 2306 119TH ST SW EVERETT, WA 98204 EVERETT, WA 98204 EVERETT, WA 98204 425-290-7660 425-290-7660 LICENSE 4: REGALHL975ON EXP:9/17/2007 NEW SFR VALUATION: $250,761INCOMP16 PERMIT TYPE: Residential PERMIT GROUP: 64 - Single Family Residence New GRADING: Y CYDS: 275 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB RETAINING WALL ROCKERY: N OCCUPANT GROUP: R3 OCCUPANT LOAD: FENCE: N ( 0 X 0 FT.) CODE: 2003 OTHER N ------- OTHER DESC: ZONE: RS -8 NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 VESTED DATE. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 1 BASEMENT: 0 ISP FLOOR: 0 2ND FLOOR: 0 IBASEMENT, 0 1ST FLOOR: 1302 2ND FLOOR: 1249 3RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OTHER: 0 13RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 445 DECK: 24 OTHER: 0 REQUIRED: NORTH 25' PROPOSED: 33 REQUIRED: EAST 7.5' PROPOSED: 7.5 REQUIRED: SOUTH 15' PROPOSED: 31 HEIGHT ALLOWED:25 PROPOSED:25 RF,QUIRED: WEST 7.5' PROPOSED: 8 SETBACK NOTES: PATIO LOCATION OK PER 10/19/06 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PURSUANT TO ECDC 23.40.280.D. BUILDING IS SETBACK >10' (11.67) FROM TOP OF SLOPE PER PLAT REQUIREMENT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOINGTHE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF TETE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATINGTO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27, HIS APPLICATION ISNOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HWHER DEPUTY AND ALL FEESARE PAID. Signature ' Flint Name Date ATTENTION 1"1 IS UNLA W FUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FfNAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/ IBC 110/ IRCI 10. ARCHIVE APPLICANT ASSESSOROTHER xms�(Mn2mohdC�o o a o Mailing Address Job Address ap2jca LL) _1 �nno�cS�S Building Permit # E lO 1C7�,� For:' Issued on C40 (Yn 0-1 Expires: All required inspection(s) must be completdd by the expiration date. If more work must be done your permit may be renewed by submitting ewal fees of $ rior to expiration. �o`rPlease call (425) 771-0220 x 1333 to schedule for inspection(s) if the k is complete and the permit has not expired. If the permit expires without all required inspection approvals, the matter will be forwarded to enforcement for resolution. l This permit is not renewable. Please call a Permit Coordinator for more information.` ®ATE MAILED c� � Thank You, Building ®ivision 425-771-0220 STATUS: ISSUED BLD20061067 • Must follow the recommendations of the geotechnical reports. Patio location OK per 10/19/06 Dennis Bruce report and pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280.D. Building must be set back at least 10 feet from top of slope (11.67 shown). • REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR THIS PROJECT: 1) SOIL BEARING VERIFICATION 2) PROOF ROLLING 3) PLACEMENT OF FILL AND COMPACTION 4) GENERAL SITE MONITORING 5) FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 6) SOIL NAILS • Lot line stakes must be in place at the time of foundation/setback inspection. • All new, extended, re -built or relocated electrical utility and/or service shall be placed underground. • Approval of this foundation design is conditional subject to inspection of existing site soil conditions. Retaining Walls must be designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure ofthe retained material. Provisions must be made for the control and drainage of surface water around buildings. • Installer shall provide the manufacturer's installation, operating instructions, and a whole house ventilation system operation description. A label shall be affixed to the whole house timer control that reads "Whole House Ventilation" (see operating instructions). • Maximum Height 25 feet. Measured from average elevation of undisturbed soil at comers of extended building rectangle. Subject to field check by building department. • Hose Bibbs (exterior faucets) are required to have a permanently affixed anti -siphon device installed. • In addition to the required pressure/relief valve, an approved listed expansion tank shall be installed on all hot water tanks. Per UPC 608. • Type B or L vent connectors required on fuel -bum ing appliances passing through unheated spaces. Per IMC 803.2 • Obtain Electrical Permit from State Department of Labor & Industries. 425-290-1309 • Pursuant to UPC 605.2 a water service shutoff shall be installed on the water line as it enters the building. • City approved plastic piping may be used in water service piping provided that where metal water service piping is used for electrical grounding purposes, replacement piping shall be of like materials (UPC 604.8). A state electrical permit and inspection is required if electrical grounding is altered, removed, improved, or added. Contact State Dept. of Labor & Industries Electrical Division at 425-290-1309. • Submit all special inspection reports to the City Building Inspector on a weekly basis. • Any request for the modification, variance or other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") must be specifically called out and identified. Approval of any plat or plan containing provisions which do not comply with City code and for which a variance has not been specifically identified, request and considered by the appropriate City official in accordance with the appropriate provision of City code or State law does not approve any items not to code specification. • Pursuant to UPC 608 a pressure regulator valve (PRV) shall be installed near the water shutoff. • Sound/Noise originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt fromthe noise limits of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm on weekdays and 10:00am and 6:00pm on Saturdays, excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other times the noise originating from construction, sites/activites must comply with the noise limits of Chapter 5.30, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 5.30.120. INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT TIME LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) CALL FOR INS PECTIONS BUILDING 425) 771-0220 EXT. 1333 ENGINEERING 425 771-0220 EXT. 1326 FIRE 425 771-0215 PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235 1 PRE-TREATMENT 425) 672-5755 1 RECYCLING 425 275-4801 When calling for an inspection please leave the following information: Permit Number, Job Site Address, Type of Inspection being requested, Contact Name and Phone Number, Date Prefereed, and whether you prefer morning or afternoon. • E -Erosion Control/Mobilization • E-StormTightline • B -Storm Connect to Stub • &Footing Drain Connection • E- Footing Drywell • &Water Service Line • E Engineering Final • B -Setbacks • B -Footings • B -Foundation Wall • B -Isolated Footings/Piers B -Retaining Wall • B -Slab Insulation • B -Plumb Ground Work • B -First Floor Framing • B -Plumb Rough In • B -Gas Test/Pipe • B-Equipment-Mech B-11Merior Sheathing • B -Shear Nailing • B -Height Verification • B -Framing • B-WallInsulation/Caulk • B -Floor Insulation/Caulk • B -Ceiling Insulation/Caulk • B-Sheetrock Nail • B -Building Final 11/02/2006 12:45 FAX 425 2909941 Regal Homes LLC 1003 NOV-01-2006 08 55 P.04/06 .w CITY OF FDMONDS SPECIAL INSPECTLON AND TESTING AGREEMENT 1'bc project at ? ��/U !QA 1;;b 0issued under�Uuiltlillg,pert! t number requires special inspection and/or testiug per f BC. Chajitcr i, 1rf,v,9,, 5' complete fist of Special inspections is attached to this document. 13L ORE A irk kNUT CAN HE ISSUED: 'the owner and contractor anti special luJhcaaw -1h.&11 aotaplaLe this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required acknowledgements. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the Building Vlttclal prior to perturntlun yuy du4ic-1 u, iobvcotivw. I:wa.6 special in3pcetor shallsut)■"it gt!atomont of Qualifications to clic Building Official for review. Special inspectors shall display identification when performing special inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet the Minimum requirements of IBC Chapter 17 and the following: A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Spccial Inspector I,. Observe Fork The special inspector shall observe the site work for conformance with the approved (stamped) plans and specifications and, applicable workmanship provisions of the IBC. Architect or Engineer �v,vi..�orl chop drawinvs may be used oniv as an aid to insDcction. Special Inspections are to be performed on a continuous basis—meaning that the special inspector is on site at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspectious, if any, must have prior approval by the City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Building Official and the engineer or architect of record. 2. Report Nou-conforming Items The special inspector shall bring non -conforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely manner shall be immediate cause of the special inspector to notify the Building Official of the plan deviation, error, change or omission- it shAl 2Iso be the duty of the special inspector to promptly notify the engineer or architect. 3. Complete Daily Reports Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special insliection record and the daily report forts for each day's inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with file contractor for review by the City Building Inspector. 4. Furnish Weekly Reports The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the City with weekly reports of tests and inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be copied on reports. Weekly reports must include the following: • Description of dally inspections and tests matte with applicable locations • List of all non -conforming items • Report on status of non-confortaing items (resolved or unresolved) • Itemized changes authorized by the Arthitect, Engineer and City if riot included in non- conformance items. S. Ftaimish Final Construction Report The vpeciul ioepector or inspoction a600ay shall cul*mit n Gnal cignod rerorl tri.thn.! ify„etafinpj.tllol................. all items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reliorted. And, to the best of L:\TEMP\BUl1.D'iNG\SpeciatirLTcctionAVeementIRC.Me 7/04 11/02/2006 12:46 FAX 425 2909941 Regal Homes LLC Niw-01-2006 08:56 SPECIAL WSpbCTIUn ANU'l�.ti 1'LN4 5(:tIf;UUL>t; REINFORCED CONCRETE. GUNPTB, GROUT AND MORTAR: ttaaese Gmhe Ctrwt Morwr T!!! i— 7--. Mit Dcsgns Rsitdoming Pbccmcw ;;Pbistt Mspcetion Can Tcsti PRTCASTIppX,,V r&SSED CONCRE'T'E: {�JoeeinE Tesas Tcndw Tats Mix Dtsl bs Rcinfaco+g Phrcemeot luras plaeentettt Ganes= Placcmcot lay+Jlacioa l n t:aaSa es P:ctt Compmuioo Tem MASONRY ._ Sp=W Insycctioa Sct:sscs Uscd p�yo.nuy,..eep.,,,.ca irxa fMaroory UnW. W,11 A:,p.,t Sabsgwco Tess (Mortar: Grout. Field Wall Risms) Plac....d Lapcnion of Uwiu ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER TESTS AND INSPECTIONS: 10 004 P. 06/06 etu��sx� 'y-�q►. nOL1 � � it��..Lw.O�.ow STRUCTURAL DiN(-'-: Sample and Tut (list apocific M=beis bdor) St p Mawwl Id=tif'tc-- _ WCA g baspot _ C)Shop 0 Field — tjbr" it U spwtioa O sew D Fidd 1Ggtisttaagsh Bolting WT -mo O Shop O Fide OA325 0 Ox OF o A490 Mcul Dock WcwmE hap=i- _ Rci>alotisg Slee) Welding wgcclioa _ Metal Stud WeldieF bmpeuioo FIREPROOFING: Pbctmcnt Inspextioss _ Dcoxity Tests Ttmbwss teas Inspect Batching INCI.11_A1nNG CONCR-WrK: Sample and Ten _ Pbcement Inspection Unit Wci f;hu FILL MATERIAL: Acceptance Tau _ Plwcn=arinspccuott .� Field Masiq STRUCTURAL WOOD: _ Shear Wall Nailiitag Inspeclk» Impcefion of Glwbm Fab. locpectioo of Truss Joist Fab. .� Sampk and Teo+ Compooma Trlc: - -- Farm cn-nplaed blr. Dsee: Tckphow No.: TOTAL P-66 11/02/2006 12:46 FAX 425 2909941 Regal Homes LLC 09/05/2006 17:26 FAX 425 2909941 Regal Homes LLC Z005 lL4JYLw P. "W �AUCr18-� 10:41 ed is in conformance with the Approved plans and spidt"CAGnes, hislher {aw�'ledge the prof Provisions or the IBC. Items oat in approved 01328 a orders and the Applicable worltmaasbip pr (ie., missed iced items or any discrepancies in inspection eovera�, ciCeall conformance or ttttreso aired, etc•) shall be Y iespeetions, periodic inspection wben eootinuoos intpeetions were req itewix*d in this report - Co. Acsoonclbifities 1. Notify the Special Inspector or when work is ready for special d it is the duty of the contractor to Notify the special inspect d as noted cg the approved plitpl, ;pspection. Notc, the items listed on the altached ione•Ad uate notice rha11 be provided by the spmeiftcations are required to have special lost t be M miliar with the project - contractor A4 that the special inotctor has time to come y- Rrovide Access to Approved Plans The contractor is responsible for providing the special insyctlor access to approved plans at. sp jvbsite. 3. Retain Special Inspection Records in at the jobsite all Special inspection records n baoi feq�� special inspector. These records the The contrsictor i1 responsible to tw are to be provided to the City building inspector p° C. CiDt of Edmonds Boil lur De wall t es o tles 1. AppNve special inspectors or inspection agencies The building department 311211 approve all spetW inspectors and sptcinl inspection requirements. 2. Monitor special inspection sod approve weekly 'rmarr�ce of special inspectors shall be monitored by Work requiring Special inspection and the p� the City Building inspector. MsMer approval umust be obtained prior to placeIDont of concrete or other similar activities in addition to tbxt of the special iospwetor. 3- issue Ccrtfrcate of Occupancy The Building Official may issue a Certificate of Ocenpasey atter 211 weekly special inspection *sports including the final report have been submitted and aceepted- Owner Responsibilities The project owner or the engineer or architEet of record acting as the owner's agent shat fund VJ special inspection services- `� g g q6 lr . lrntt or Anhitect of liecor Iieeponsibitities The sogineer or architect of record shall include special inspection requiremeots on the platys an specifications. ACiC1qOwLEDGEM>iN'I'S ,nuneeM. Ye Fad a8 a eompry with lite lerm9 and conditions of this ab Date -I I M40 6 Owner .qpecial Inspector GC Date O�L� a�� Date U 06 Da'✓ M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. February 15, 2007 Geotechnical/Civil Engineer RESUB City of Edmonds CITY COPY FFB 26 2007 c/o Regal Homes, LLC 26119th St. SW n�N oSO M Everett, WA 98204 Subject: Geotechnical Response — City of Edmonds Comments (November 6, 2006) Regal Homes New Single -Family Residence 22808 96th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington Plan Check No. 05 - 355 This engineering letter presents geotechnical responses. to City of. Edmonds comments (November 6, 2006) for Regal Homes proposed new residence at the above address GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONS: 5) Regal Homes has provided additional clarification to City of Edmonds request for modified / final plans. 6) No soil nailing will occur on this property or in conjunction with construction of the new Regal Homes residence. This engineer (D. Bruce, P.E.) will perform on-site geotechnical inspections. No soil nailing for this single-family residence. 7) Additional report copies: D. Bruce, P.E. has provided additional copies for the Geotechnical Report dated April 30, 2001. Regal Homes will provide additional relevant geotechnical copies of any other reports, as required. • -Clarification = Top -of -slope issues.. This engineer -has performed. an additional on-site investigation for the layout of the proposed layout Lot No. 6 house' footprint. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Regal Homes, LLC February 15, 2007 Page 2 The previously submitted Site Plan has the geotechnical top -of -slope delineated. This delineation has been verified by D. Bruce, P.E. The proposed new residence will have a concrete patio that slightly encroaches within 10.0 feet from the top -of -slope delineation. The slight encroachment of the concrete patio is not geotechnically significant. On-site inspections by this engineer will verify sub -grade preparation, bearing capacity and installation of the patio. This engineer has reviewed the previous geotechnical reports by Earth Consultants and understands that the 10 -foot setback is appropriate for the residence foundation itself. On-site geotechnical inspections are required by D. Bruce, P.E. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. DMB:abj p.E Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer "Oct;25 06 05:35P D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1 I1 i Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer October 19, 2006 City of Edmonds Go Regal Homes 2306 119th St. SW Everett, WA 98204 Subject: Geotechnical Review — Approval of Plans Regal Homes — New Single -Family Residence Lot No. 6, Plat of K. Elise 22808 96h PI. W, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical review of the proposed plans for Lot No. 6 new residence, as well as on-site verification of footprint layout. REFERENCES: • Project Plans • Geotechnical Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • Site photographs • City of Edmonds review comments dated August 18, 2006 BACKGROUND: This engineer has provided geotechnical investigation and residence criteria for the overall development (K. Elise plat). As previously stated, the individual homes must comply with the geotechnical foundation and setback recommendations with regard to the adjacent slope. This engineer directed Regal Homes to layout the footprint for Lot No. 6 residence on -site. - On -site geotechnical evaluation verified that the foundation footprint is setback a minimum of 10 feet from the top -of -slope. NOTE: This engineer has delineated the geotechnical top -of -slope on previously submitted topographic site plans. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 'Oct -.25 06 05:35p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2 I City of Edmonds c/o Regal Homes October 19, 2006 Page 2 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW — RECOMMENDATIONS: • The slope as indicated on the site plan (delineated and certified by D. Bruce, P.E.) is the actual geotechnical top -of -slope. The foundation footings for the new residence are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the top -of -slope. This 10 -foot setback is geotechnically acceptable, provided this engineer performs on-site inspections. NOTE: The proposed concrete patio slightly encroaches within the 10 -foot setback — this location for the concrete patio is not geotechnically dangerous to the top -of -slope. On-site geotechnical inspections will assess foundation sub -grade integrity, sub -grade preparation, construction quality control, and overall grading. It is understood that this engineer will perform geotechnical inspections as a. condition of permit approval. • This engineer has read, reviewed, and understands the geotechnical report by Earth Consultants, and agrees that the sub -grade soils are stable and allow for the proposed construction of the house on Lot No. 6, utilizing the 10 -foot setback from the top -of -slope, subject to geotechnical inspections. • Mitigation measures to stabilize the top of slope: Normal construction methods for the Lot No. 6 residence may be followed. Assertive discussions with Regal Homes indicate that no grading or disruption of the top -of --slope are proposed. Geotechnical inspections (by D. Bruce, P.E.) will yffMf the integrity of the slope is maintained throughout the project. This engineer is always available to meet with City of Edmonds personnel (on-site) to mutually discuss overall site integrity, as required. SUMMARY: • The proposed layout for Lot No. 6 residence has been verified by this engineer and is geotechnically approved, subject to inspections. • The existing slope is stable and will not incur adverse impacts from the construction of the Lot No. 6 residence, subject to geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E. "Oct -.25 06 05:35p City of Edmonds c/o Regal Homes October 19, 2006 Page 3 D. Bruce, P.E. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. 206-546-8442 p.3 EXPIRES 1?!?3i DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. JULY 1 M.S.G:E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer o ff, E6 4 L GSA e -S L©T (,0 RE6 4 L HOP ES 6EoTSCONleAL IE &RLA TE K. ���sE �LaT Vk�K�Rnres '�E�EkEuc�s : PRO -X. P1_AAJs roll Lo -r A--,6 — P_JF6 AL 40&46-S • 6EdTec" REPoRTs (AsREFER RT EGAI2�IN� MAY s, a0o� J�.T31i2ccF R FRoPoSI=,& SOIL /UA(LING-) • O N s ITC Lo T # to ro©-fPR/N T LA -Y00 o� S Tc -7 E7v A1.vAT1oN o Ttf E Lo -r 5 ��• R . �'ODT PRI NT LAr`� ouT, • Tr�E �ooTIN6 ��-IG,NM�6�T AN4 LOCAT/o/U WITH 'RFSPFGT 7 ALTAcEMT Top.OVSl;o?E R" (5R,T&C1fNleAo t -S PPRe��d� s AJLS. STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK: `r l/UsPEeTr IU /u-. t'�'iI "�j Tf, ANI, F' r6. L.W r The plans and specifications for the Ln? # 6 KE6AL E40A67_5 _have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspec and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal. RESUB IO's Pe�c.'Cto0& Amt eiTY 6EO-tEe#. I-EPD&Ts yr? �J M0 OU tS c ISLEAst— (AL(,, I 0()t .s-r(o#)s . CI'I'Y COPY JUL 2 6 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS M. of WAS 016'0 1740Q � . SS"ONAL rEXInft� 3/ � SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer April 30, 2001 Mr. Rob Michel�I�� �®�� APR 3 0 2007 Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212th St. S.W., #102 e1��vo °BONDS Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Recommendations Proposed Ten Single Family Residences 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the eight building lots at 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner/developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: • Location and topographic map by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates dated January 17, 2001 • Site plans • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property consists of approximately 3.46 acres and has never been developed. The property consists of a lower zone (proposed Lot Nos. .9 & 10) along Edmonds Way, and an upper zone consisting of the proposed eight (8) lot single family residence development with cul-de-sac access. A relatively steep "bluff -face" distinguishes the lower zone from the upper zone. It is understood that historic gravel excavation and mining occurred north of Edmonds Way creating the over -steepened apparent "bluff -face" (see survey topographic map for specific bluff face delineation). Visual evaluation of the property fevealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no settlements, no shifting, no soil creep, nor any erosional degradation were observed. The property immediately to the west consists of a gasoline service station and car wash. The service station has utilized a rockery along the base of the "bluff -face" to SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, A 98155 (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 I Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 2 provide erosion stability. No evidence of any geotechnical distress was observed along the neighboring rockery. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to install a roadway access (from the upper zone) extending 96th Ave. W and developing eight single family residence lots (see site plan). Additionally, the lower zone is to be developed into two lots (Lots No. 9 and 10) " for service station expansion and/or church parking lot expansion (to be determined). EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test holes were hand dug by this engineer on April 2, 2001 for the proposed upper eight (8) lots. A total of eight (8) test holes were dug. All hand dug test holes revealed similar subgrade conditions, namely.- 0" amely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt 6" to approx. 14" Light brown/reddish-brown sandy loam. Grading to sandy silt 14" to approx. 38" Increasingly dense sandy silt/weathered (bottom of test hole) glacial till (hard pan). No water was encountered in any of the eight test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. No test holes were dug in the lower zone (Lots 9 and 10). This lower zone has functioned as a parking area on extremely dense, compacted gravels. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the property at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically approved for the proposed Michel Construction eight (8) unit single family residences with road access (upper zone), subject to the following: Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Setback distances (Lots 6, 7, and 8): A nominal setback distance of twenty (20) feet from top -of -slope may be used for preliminary house siting purposes. Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 3 Specific geotechnical recommendations may reduce this nominal setback distance once final house plans are provided this engineer. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspection by this engineerrip or to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For G.L.C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 4 Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Where: Desiqn Value 0.55 350 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic Foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils. can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which restrain level backfill.- Parameter ackfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 5 For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, su6h as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 6 four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). fill slopes should not exceed 1;1 (H:V). It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. The apparent "bluff -face" reveals extremely dense, glacially compacted, "hardpan" soils. The slope cut is geotechnically stable, .and requires no additional retaining or stabilization measures. Some select grading/trimming is recommended to remove occasional zones of overburdened soils. This engineer envisions slight grading/trimming to achieve a more uniform slope face. If desired, a toe -of -slope stabilization wall may be utilized to prevent ongoing erosional sloughing. Ecology block, rockery, or key stone block may be utilized along the base of slope. Specific designs by this engineer recommended. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits during the field work. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during Winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 7 slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to.placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 8 Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on-site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soils are generally silty and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with the approximately three and one-half (3 '/2) acre site at 9601 Edmonds Way. Surface runoff flows generally southerly following the native topography. Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements are geotechnically acceptable. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.15B.110: This engineer has reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding exemption criteria. This engineer believes that the property at 9601 Edmonds Way qualifies for such exemption. • The proposed Michel Construction development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property and the site following the permitted activity. The site itself and adjacent property will be stable within the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the state building code as adopted by this Code. Key geotechnical inspection by this engineer to verify. Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 9 • The steep slope portions of this property are mapped as the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the East and Part of the Edmond's West Quadr8ngels" by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior U.S.G.S. 1983, Map MF -1541): till. • No excavations will occur on the steep slopes. • No retaining structures are necessary nor envisioned on the steep slopes. As discussed, an erosion stabilization rockery may be utilized at the base -of -slope. This erosion stabilization structure is not necessary nor is considered a retaining structure. • None of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the property classified as a steep slope: impermeable soils inter -bedded with granular soils, springs or ground water seepage, significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, previous landslide or instability, or existing landslide deposits. • The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the standard penetration test (ASTM D1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject properties classified as a steep slope do not exceed three (3) feet. Thus, the property qualifies for exemption. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTION: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation subgrade verification • Retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. April 30, 2001 Page 10 SUMMARY: The proposed Michel Construction, Inc. ten lot development of eight single family residences at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANS: As discussed, the proposed eight lot development is geotechnically viable. It is essential, however, that this engineer review final plans for the upper eight houses, as well as any development on the lower portion of the property prior to permit issuance. This final geotechnical review will allow for verification of geotechnical criteria to be made. Recommendations or plan modifications to improve geotechnical compliance may also occur upon final review. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations.' If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. xx�s i aoo _ DMB:abj �1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer May 11 06 08:46a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A.. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer May 5, 2006 Regal Homes �jTV CI®Py 2306 119'h St. SW Everett, WA 98204 Subject: Geotechnical Review — Proposed Soil Nailing Work K. Elise Plat — Westgate Hills Development This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed soil nailing stability work on behalf.of Valhalla, LLC (A. D. Shapiro, Architects). This review was requested by Regal Homes (Marko Liias) with regard to the geotechnical impacts to Regal Homes (up-slope) Lot No. 6 and No. 7. REFERENCES: ! Geotechnical report for Regal Homes by Earth Consultants dated March 31, 2005 Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. for Michel Construction dated April 30, 2001 • Golder Assoiciates Geotechnical Report for Valhalla, LLC by GoldeAwgi s t dated October 4, 2004 • Section Views by A. D. Shapiro, Architects JUL2 • Site photographs 6 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND: CITY of EDMONDS This engineer performed a geotechnical investigation for Michel Construction for the upper (top -of -slope) lots April 30, 2001. As of the date of this report (May 5, 2006), some of the upper lots already have new houses completed, and some are under construction (by Regal Homes). It is understood that Valhalla, LLC, in conjunction with designs by Shapiro Architects, proposes a project at the base -of -slope (see Shapiro Designs and Geotechnical Report by Golder Associates dated October 4, 2004). This engineer has read the October 4, 2004 Report by Golder and Associates and understands that the slope (behind / northerly) is considered to be in need of additional stabilization. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 . (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 May 11 06 08:46a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2 Regal Homes May 5, 2006 Page 2 The geotechnical report recommends the stabilizing technique of "soil nails" placed in accordance with specific geotechnical design criteria and on-site inspections. In order for the soil nail project to be effective, an easement would be required (from Regal Homes) to Valhalla, LLC / Shapiro. This easement, if granted would allow for the subsurface installation of the soil nails (see graphs depiction by Shapiro Associates). It is understood that the 25 -foot setback zone would be utilized for the soil nails. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW: This engineer has done extensive review of the Golder Associates October 4, 2004 Geotechnical Report. The report consisted of analysis of a number of soil test pits as well as field observations. In the "construction considerations" section, the recommendations for soil nail shoring as well as temporary cut slopes, are provided. These recommendations are consistent with a professional level of geotechnical reporting — this engineer concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Golder Report. The proposed nail shoring system would require extensive on-site geotechnical inspections to verify each key element is performed properly. This engineer has discussed the proposed soil nailing with Mr. David Cotton, the geotechnical engineer of record on the October 4, 2004 Report. This engineer understands that Mr. Cotton is now with the Kleinfelder firm and that Kleinfelder will be providing geotechnical inspections for the soil nail portion of the project. This engineer recommends that Regal Homes allow the proposed subsurface easement (within the 25 -foot setback zone) for the proposed soil nailing project, subject to: Final review of actual soil nail plans prior to installation Geotechnical inspection of soil nail operation with reports to City of Edmonds and courtesy copies to Regal Homes, or their designee. Periodic geotechnical observance by D. Bruce, P.E. to verify proper installation of the soil nails and verify geotechnical inspections (understood performed by Kleinfelder). May 11 06 08:46a D. Bruce, P.E. Regal Homes May 5, 2006 Page 3 206-546-8442 SUMMARY: • The proposed soil nail shoring system will not create geotechnical adverse conditions to the up-slope Regal Homes lots. When installed properly, and verified by geotechnical inspections, the proposed soil nail wall will improve overall slope stability. • This engineer recommends that Regal Homes grant the subsurface easement for the soil nail installation, subject to the specific requirements listed in this report. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. X15 M. B� 07 WASy�h ' r A40 ♦f� NAL EAG r—EXFnRIES...1212Xr.�-oog DMB:abj cc: Regal Homes Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer p.3 65.49 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 6 AND 7 96T" PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-:11729 March 31, 2005 PREPARED FOR REGAL HOMES, LL� Sch AF��1os Kristina M. Weller, PE Manager -of Geotechnical Services Earth Consultants, Inc. C1C 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 643-3780 Toll -Free 1- (888) 739-6670 REcFiVED AUG 4 2U05 PERMIT COUNTER IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical -related delays, cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used: • When the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- frigerated one; • when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership, or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- technical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, -their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly - changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- neering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- technical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. S Earth consultants, Inc. wrGeotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists Construction Testing & ICBO / WABO inspection services March 31, 2005 Regal Homes, LLC 2306— 1 19th Street Southwest Everett, Washington 98204 Attention: Dear Mr. Liias: Mr. Marko Liias Established 1975 E-1 1729 Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Single -Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7, 228XX — 96th Place West, Edmonds, Washington". This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our March 1, 2005, proposal. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the development of the lots with single-family residences is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Support for the single-family residences may be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on structural fill. Slab -on -grade floors may be similarly supported. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Steve J. Scharf Staff Geologist SJS/KMW/lap 1805136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98005 Other Locations Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670 Fife TABLE OF CONTENTS E-11729 PAGE INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 General........................................................................................................... 1 ProjectDescription........................................................................................... 1 Scopeof Services............................................................................................ 2 SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................ 2 Surface........................................................................................................... 2 Subsurface...................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater................................................................................................... 4 LaboratoryTesting........................................................................................... 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 5 General........................................................................................................... 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork.............................................................. 6 Stripping.................................................................................................... 6 StructuralFill.............................................................................................. 7 SlopeFill Placement..................................................................................... 8 Foundations.................................................................................................... 8 Slab -on -Grade Floors........................................................................................ 10 RetainingWalls................................................................................................ 10 Seismic Design Considerations.......................................................................... 11 GroundRupture........................................................................................... 11 Liquefaction................................................................................................ 11 SlopeFailure............................................................................................... 11 Ground Motion Response............................................................................. 12 Excavations and Slopes.................................................................................... 12 Site Drainage LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................... 14 AdditionalServices........................................................................................... 14 Earth Consultants, Inc. M TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-11729 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Slope Fill Placement Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Plate A 1 Plates A2 through A7 Appendix B Plate 131 Field Exploration Legend Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 6 AND 7 228XX — 96T" PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-11729 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for two single-family residence lots located at 228XX - 96" Place West, in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the conditions encountered, develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for developing the site with two new single-family residences. Project Description The subject site consists of two, single-family residence lots (Lots 6 and 7) within a new eight lot, residential development located in the 22800 block of 96th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. We understand it is planned to develop each lot with a new single-family residence. Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the proposed residences will be two to three stories in height and will be of relatively lightly loaded wood -frame construction with a combination of slab -on -grade and wood joist floors. We anticipate wall loads will be on the order of 2 to 4 kips per lineal foot and column loads will be in the range of 50 to 60 kips. We estimate slab -on -grade floor loads will be approximately 150 pounds per square foot. Based on observed surface conditions at the time of our field exploration, we anticipate the proposed residences will be constructed at or near existing grade with estimated cuts and fills generally in the range of five feet or less. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 2 Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our March 1, 2005 proposal. On this basis we excavated six test pits on the lots and our study addresses the following: • Surface and subsurface soil and water conditions; • Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including stripping depth recommendations, details of structural fill placement and compaction; • Suitability of existing on-site materials for use as structural fill, and recommendations for imported fill materials; • Seismic hazard review, including an evaluation of potential liquefaction hazards; • Short term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control measures; • Foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral pressures for walls and structures; • Estimates of potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; and • Temporary and permanent slope recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site consists of two, irregular shaped residential lots located in the 22800 block of 96th Place West, around 400 feet southwest of the intersection of 228" Street Southwest and 96th Place West in the City of Edmonds, Washington (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The subject lots are bordered to the east and west by undeveloped lots within the tract, to the north by a cul-de-sac at the end of 96" Place West, and to the south by a southeast -facing slope. The south and east sides of the site are bordered by sanitary sewer and storm water easements. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-11729 Page 3 The topography to the south of Lot 6 consists of a southeast facing slope that descends approximately 50 feet from the southern property line to the toe of slope around 95 feet to the south with approximate gradients of 30 to more than 100 percent. The topography within Lot 6 is relatively level between the north property line along 96`h Place West and the southern property line around 110 feet to the south. The topography within Lot 7 consists of a south facing, gradually descending slope that extends roughly 80 feet beyond the south property line with gradients in the range of 10 to 30 percent. The majority of the site is sparsely vegetated with tall grass, Scots broom, blackberry bushes, and miscellaneous ground cover. The slope to the south of the site is vegetated primarily with blackberry bushes, Scots broom, and sparse deciduous trees. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were evaluated by excavating three test pits in Lot 6 and three test pits in Lot 7 at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2, Test Pit Location Plan. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of nine feet below existing grade using a rubber -tired backhoe. Our test pit logs are included as Plates A2 through A7. Please refer to the test pit logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each test pit location. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Based on subsurface conditions encountered in Test pits TP -2 and TP -3, Lot 6 is underlain by two to five feet of existing fill comprised of loose to medium dense silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM). Lot 7 contains six feet of fill comprised of loose to medium dense silty sand as encountered in Test Pits TP -5 and TP -6. The fill thickness appears to increase to the south toward the top of the descending slope. The fill was characterized by its loose condition, its disturbed appearance, and presence of trace household debris. In Test Pits TP -2, TP -3, TP -5, and TP -6, the existing fill is underlain by glacial till comprised of dense to very dense silty sand with gravel to the maximum exploration depth. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-1 1729 Page 4 No fill was encountered in Test Pit TP -1 (Lot 6) or Test Pit TP -4 (Lot 7). In Test Pit TP - 1 we encountered eight feet of silty sand with gravel (SM) over poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP -SM). In Test Pit TP -1, the native soils were medium dense from the surface to around three and one half feet below grade then became dense to very dense to the maximum depth explored. In Test Pit TP -4 (Lot 7), we encountered dense to very dense silty sand from the existing ground surface to the maximum depth explored. Groundwater Light seepage was encountered in Test Pit TP -6 at five feet below existing grade. The observed seepage appeared to consist of seasonal perched groundwater, with groundwater collecting in a relatively permeable sand lens surrounded by low permeability soils. No seepage was observed at the remaining test pit locations. The contractor should be aware that groundwater levels should not be considered static. Groundwater levels may fluctuate significantly depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the groundwater level is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses on representative samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of 15 days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-1.1729 March 31, 2005 Page 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the construction of the proposed single-family residences is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Support for the proposed residences may be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill. The southern portions of the lots are underlain by up to six feet of existing fill that appears to have been pushed over the top of slope that borders the lots to the south. The existing fill slope along the south side of Lot 6 is in an over steepened condition. In our opinion, the loose fill that was encountered near the top of the slope in the southern portions of the lots should be reworked and compacted to the requirements of structural fill. The existing fill along the top of the slope should be over -excavated and replaced in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Slope Fill Placement section of this report. The existing fill is also unsuitable for direct support of the proposed buildings. If fill is encountered at construction subgrade elevations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the bottom of the overexcavation should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill. Alternatively, the foundation elements may also be extended through the existing fill and bear on the underlying dense native soils. The subject lots are bordered to the south by an approximately 40 to 50 foot high, south -facing steep slope area. In our opinion, provided the existing fill on the south side of the lots is over excavated and replaced with structural fill and the structures are founded on competent native soil or newly placed structural fill, the total construction setback/buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten feet from the descending steep slope area. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-11729 Page 6 This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions, in this area for the exclusive use of Regal Homes, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork At the time of this study, rough grading had been completed within the limits of the site. We anticipate cuts and fills on the order of five feet or less will be required to reach construction subgrade elevations within the proposed building areas. We anticipate underground utility work to consist of connecting utilities from the existing stub outs to the buildings. Stripping Proposed building, pavement, and areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, existing structures or pavements, and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetative cover encountered in our test pits, we estimate a stripping depth of approximately four inches. Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. The stripped soil materials may be "wasted" on site in non-structural landscaping areas or exported off site. Root balls from vines, brush, and trees should be grubbed out to remove roots greater than about one -inch in diameter. The depth of excavation to remove root balls could exceed 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on the grubbing methods used, disturbance and loosening of the subgrade could occur during the grubbing process. Soil disturbed during the grubbing process should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill. Existing underground utilities to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-1 1729 Page 7 Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be observed by an ECI representative. Where feasible, the building areas should be proofrolled to identify soft or yielding areas. Proofrolling should be performed using a fully loaded dump truck and should be observed by a representative from ECI. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with a granular structural fill. For this application, a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 600X or an equivalent material can be placed directly on the subgrade. The geotextile should be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). _ The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the fill soils encountered at our test pit locations appeared to contain a high moisture content that may not allow for proper compaction, and may not be suitable for use as structural fill if they are above optimum levels at the time of construction. The native soils encountered at our test pit locations appeared be near their optimum moisture levels and should be suitable for use as structural fill provided the grading work is constructed during the dry season. Wet soils can be aerated during dry weather to achieve a suitable moisture content for compaction. Based on the results of our laboratory testing and site observations of soils encountered at our test pit locations, the site soils have a fines content typically in the range of 18 percent fines or greater passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in excess of approximately 5 percent are moisture sensitive and will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-1 1729 Page 8 If the site soils are exposed to excessive moisture, cannot be dried -back to optimum levels, or if they cannot be adequately compacted, then it may be necessary to import a soil that can be compacted. During dry weather, non-organic compactable granular soil with a maximum grain size of four inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Slope Fill Placement In our opinion, the placement of fill on a sloping grade is acceptable, however, where slope gradients exceed 20 percent, the fill must be keyed and benched into the slope. This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of at least two feet into medium dense or dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Plate 3, Slope Fill Placement, shows a schematic diagram of the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on the results of our study and provided our recommendations are followed, in our opinion, the proposed single-family residences may be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill. The southern portions of the lots are underlain by up to six feet of existing fill that is unsuitable for support of the proposed buildings. If fill is encountered at construction subgrade elevations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the bottom of the overexcavation should be compacted in- place to the requirements of structural fill. Alternatively, the foundation elements may also be extended through the existing fill and bear on the underlying dense native soils. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC March 31, 2005 E-1 1729 Page 9 Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths in accordance with local building codes. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for competent native or structural fill soils should be used. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of 3.0 against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used. With structural loading as expected, total settlement of less than one inch is anticipated with differential movement of less than one-half inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance should be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a, factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. Unless overlain by pavements, the passive pressure should be neglected in the upper one foot. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable or the adjacent grade slopes away from the foundation at a gradient steeper than 4H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 10 Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill. Existing fill should be over excavated to a depth of one foot from slab areas and replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the bottom of the over excavation should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill. Loose or disturbed native soil encountered at subgrade elevation during construction should either be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. The slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. In addition, a vapor barrier such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Retaining Walls Retaining walls and the below grade portions of the foundation should be designed to support the lateral loads imparted by the retained soils and applicable surcharges. Walls that are designed to yield should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions.. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided in the Foundations section are applicable to the retaining wall design. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the retaining walls, the retaining walls and the below grade portions of the foundation should be backfilled with a free -draining material such as pea gravel or washed rock extending at least 18 inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A rigid, schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35 perforated drainpipe should be placed at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations in the down position. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 11 Seismic Design Considerations Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area, the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area, and the 2001, 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake. There are four potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, slope failure, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event. is negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the liquefaction potential of the site soils is negligible because of the lack of a shallow ground water table. Slope Failure Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, the subject lots and the upper portion of the descending slope are underlain by dense glacial till within six feet of the surface. As such, provided the recommendations contained in this study are followed, the risk of a seismic induced slope failure is minimal. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 12 Ground Motion Response The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil condition, it is our opinion Site Class C, Very Dense So# and Soft Rock, as defined in Table 1615.1.1 should be used to characterize the site soils. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA) and federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing,. the existing fill and surficial native soils encountered at our test pit locations would be classified as Type C by WISHA/OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1 V. The underlying dense and very dense native soils encountered during our exploration can be considered Type A by WISHA/OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 0.75H:1 V. If groundwater seepage is encountered, the soils should be treated as a Type C soil and cut accordingly. If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/WISHA guidelines, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Fill slope construction should also be observed by an ECI representative to observe construction methods and test structural fill soils. Supplementary recommendations can be developed, if needed, to improve slope stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 13 Site Drainage Light seepage was encountered in Test Pit TP -6 at five feet below existing grade. The observed seepage appeared to consist of perched groundwater, with groundwater collecting in the relatively permeable sand lens. No seepage was observed at the remaining test pit locations. If seepage is encountered in the foundation or utility excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge point. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed away from the building areas, areas to receive structural fill, and site slopes. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where structures, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the residence foundations and the descending slopes. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the proposed residences. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the residences, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be con- nected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to an approved discharge. Outfall from the downspouts should not outlet within or above the steep slope. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Regal Homes, LLC E-11729 March 31, 2005 Page 14 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site materials, selective laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the project information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from our test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the grading and construction of the residences. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify the -earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. . _'� + ..... -... '�----_..._... - S1 , zW i3S �T Lf _... Z rH 3 PL CW t. `-.0 ti t_ a 11 .vl AIGUtioUlld ntt+ ST Sj Jr %?6TH ST SW I LH liffl._1';OQ - L F'rl p'r r.F Ldp•R7.'.DS '1 ',v �: 2/rrl l,ST rt J �, .T p WAVRIAL "Ir 228TH "' r ST - SW i=' S 28 r� �O f'ok CRY + q UE74 s.11 4 OtkS' UP. 11}+ rI3 r5 0ILI pt iF >L M _ a '�1 ^, ,n � , .21x1 > 1 �• a • \,���A_ ... i t � :,H �<I 11 __ ;1 H FUNTn ? i 3 NU' a j SI SW !t211 'ry W > r- M a, A1` ° c . i_ 234Th ST SW f "�rIA 111 m r fY .s".� e l3 O t10TT ItImM a - _ _� § I ,4r. I— .1 a 3 j. ll a 1., 1T z = � 361H' SW J a --A - e:lc 2'I "f mn'tgq;l_u !i Ip F§'r� I •. rw 6 738TH ST_ ,<W i e< r ��.[{/ 238TH ST SW 37711 �1 aln 0ri..i •.v � � F.i51L�INN y � � ah4GT}I tiT SW a MEhtQni7AL• 1o5, n ____W u f _240TH T M utiY -n' ? - ;n FI - �� —� i'.CLNTCR AV X11 r ct a 1 1 UI,,Lm ,. , 74i �o �LTALEv4. Ln Lr r "J 9( °».24LND" } ST- a SW - z F , 4auD ! H 0(RnY J7 G@KIII-!i1 AV ;L V,6al y'1 244H SI' SN 7r�7�/r { d'^r3 r r1 :f\ 31 '" 1 z p �j. 244 TN ,G / 1 Y '> F cHH 2OlT{l l 1ST J ' SW 1 r ita';s T - a 3 I rvm�nc 2 �!Y t(zOuTll ST} -moi -. rai .ter. .. c D �1.,N ddH 2 ,.ST q m IM 20151 T y '..rvll , F a„ c..,. `d a n 0380 T z FJ \ NW t )u. r,n 5, a > D 1 y 1 r+-EA( +rti r, r a 3 fIH t r'iJ <<1z < ro 5. ?013ST` . ST n warm, ST' \ 0 t: / Y V 1:+ ' N 201ST ST AURMA 6'rCtACF .: 1}F- is ril rcrl $ tlfdl/ -� i Pl `< rr ,,Vi - CLti7CR H ST -4 s ot� 7D v.nl St 3++v ^stn Il +y1i :15 iN . o. - m. I vl�rry - } N 1 i 200TH ' ST- ` '� 197TH r><Irenr �r'tc i � '� _ s; 19971! -spn ! _ viSti• Z I rl rJl ,Sp a .< C vaat.i )6TH. ' ' ,;; .. ". S\ 1 ut., •� < - vi Ian tl 198TH' Z .. _ ?T t1H '\�� (I 1 = NW 195TH _ ST ' IUE71I ST `* 1 1Gni,L x j tls r 1 N y }: ` fit/ ,. N r 195TH ` I <. ST uIc I i+hl,' 11 193RD Mf 19tP I 7: S iii b 'Intuit tdH RW ST 7r Q z' x+'.s -\I D r. -,.R[- KINGS N. 19PC ; ... - lq1 4� iF;.M» rt I9'n0 e`; <� M � r ®MID CT 1 �"-' � Uti -D iokn P4. � e(',FAq { ti v- 14 mx, ST 1M t rrtn -ra n4 . la { b ' . J II ID:hI ' d h le: o' SI l 1�' ¢' _ Hlttf plt� SI c e� a;tr - q,��I_N� {19�0TH ST IN L 1415 :" 9 ro iSD it to PARK -M N ® r ,ray � H 192ND y ST 4;1--RICIP4I 0 VO Sr rn� �1�3 �y.11 1 11 ti- NutflvtH xy: 16�T0.- riu l �5i �ci q-j—•j-i <s ', j a J - \ `.'BPAitK ��tlk.c�� RD RICHMdNDra Bl"5T, S1 THSTo ��`O P A0L y NaxIH"ST RIt?HM2N0`1 1 tii 1 4 �0.. Ir. z EACH ` fALH �`i i Aa 185TH 4?1`"' 70�-, O ^ �oa ST z'� �•',� ©N 185TH ST a:u sr II 1B4n!. ST .'\ ✓y �C.�A- ,pC;>s-' ,.'z : r4r IsmD fl _ 18380 `_ , ST a . 1 \. i' z -' tiav-' e\"y'^ ..ux' z� H' wi alh,s .� N 182ND ST 1 fir' 1�a >` 1 - ; N 18' 5T ✓'�T �� �j` 00 .xnrl FV 18 �r N 16157 °= ` S_T W rt a yt 1 C � 1 •� NW 180711 5( <t , N.7bUr1�+ ' 4? a'.1BZ10 ( 1ST fiW Reference: Snohomish County Map 454 By Thomas Brothers Maps NORTH Dated 2005 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering. Geology, Environmental Sciences Consil'I lction Tesling & ICBO / WABO Inspectlol) Services Single Vicinity Map Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7 228XX 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Drwn. DNM Date Mar. 2005 Proj. No. 11729 Checked SJS Date 3/16/05 Plate 1 o NORTH so APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY CLIENT. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. 6 Lot number Surrounding lots ion of Vo. E-11729 Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering. Geob_�y, Environmental Sciences conslrm ion "resrin}; & ICBO / WABO Inspeclion Services Single Test Pit Location Plan Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7 228XX 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Drwn. DNM Date Mar. 2005 Proj. No. 11729 Checked SJS Date 3/16/05 Plate 2 Final Slope Gradient (See Text) H � =' ' �_' =1 I I • 111= V� II1= Existing 111111 Grade Existing :::'�; _ Grade •.::ti:::...;,: 111=111= r;�y ��{ =III Typical "Bench" 4 feet minimum width III •111=III-III "Key" III= III • Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. • Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. • Final Slope gradient should be _ : _ (Horizontal : Vertical). • Final Slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. • Planting or Hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged -in-place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and Earth Work Section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. LEGEND Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) or other material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. Key Way Fill is same as Structural Fill described above. Key Way shouldbe minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. - - - - - Approximate original grade. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geolo,-ists & Environmental Scientists Con StruCholl l eStlllg & ICBU / \\ ABO Inspection Services Slope Fill Placement Single Family Residence, Lot 6 and 7 228XX 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Drum. GAP Date Mar. 2005 Proj. NO. 11729 Checked SJS Date 3/31/05 Plate 3 Slope To Drain 6 inch min. •-:: -; i pois ' 06- o 'o o o0ooo_00 o°0o°o o0o . .•;::::;�:° � Date Mar. 2005 00 °o o°0o o°0000 010oo°oOo 00 0 Checked STS 0°°0o w 000 000%0000 000° op D 0 0° 000 o oopO Plate 4 ° °° ° 00 00 o°° p000 opoO°oo ° o 000p°000 °°00°o° 0 0 °0°o°0 °00�0oo000oo0 0° °O°0 °op°o0°oC ° �pO o 0 0po o ° 0p0 000 0°o ° oo ° 00 0°o ° 000 ° 00 0°c00 00 000 0 0 0 inch min. 0°0o 000 o°0o00000°,4 O 0 p°0° o°° 0° °0°000°°o °Co°0°oo o ° 0°o o °Diameter 0 0° Pipe o= o° o°° ° 0o o°o 0°0°0Perforated 0 °oo °000o00 in Drainage C)'000 0 °°°°°° °°°°°°Wrapped ° 0 ° °ooo 0 0 ° Fabric °°o o oo, o °° O uOQoQO inch nin. T 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch min. 1 FC�FNn Surface seal; native soil or other SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE low permeability material. NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 0 o° ° °0 ° ooo 1" Drain Rock o � o Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid O PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geolo',ists & ElIVIF0111 I lei tal Scientists 1;01151110..O1N1 Trstin;; nICBG/ \VABO htsheclion Services Typical Footing Placement Single Family Residence, Lot 6 and 7 228XX 96th Place West Drum. GAP Date Mar. 2005 Proj. No. 11729 Checked STS Date 3/31/05 Plate 4 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-11729 Our field exploration was performed on March 9, 2005. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by excavating six test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of nine feet below existing grade using a rubber tired backhoe. The approximate test pit locations were estimated by pacing from site features depicted on a preliminary site plan provided by the client. The test pit elevations were estimated relative to one another based on an assumed elevation of 100 feet along 96" Place West. The test pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm, who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are included on Plates A2 through A7. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. Topsoily GRAPH LETTER` Fill MAJOR DIVISIONS (SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION. 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Gravel SAMPLER PUSHED 0 o o GW W ell-Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand And Clean Gravels 8 0 Q gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines LL Gravelly :(little or no fines) 41111, 41111, A GP Poorly -Graded Gravels, GraJel- Coarse Grained Soils . . .. r 9P Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines GM Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand- Soilsore M Than �50% Coarse Gravels With gip Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines ( appreciable. GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel -Sand - Retained On amount of fines) - No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures Sand ' •o o� �o SW Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly And Clean Sand ,; o o' o o SW Sands, Little Or No Fines More ThanSP Sandy Sods ( little or no fines)! Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly '50% Material '<' ,` S I� Sands, Little Or. No Fines Larger Than SieveSM More Than No. 200 Size 50% Coarse Sands With SiTI Silt y Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines (appreciable Passing No. 4 Sieve amount of fines){, - SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures :. MLInorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour.,Silty- rt11 Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit CLInorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,, GrainSoils Clays Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, 'Lean l I I I 1 i QL Organic Silts And Organic 01 Silty Clays Of Low. Plasticity 111AMI-i Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous FirE; More Than filh Sand Or Silty Soils: 50% Material Smaller Than Silts And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High No. 200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity., Fat Clays, Size' OH Organic Clays Of Medium_ To'High 011 Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Contents �� r, �� i, �� �• pt Organic Topsoily y 4- -.1, Humus And Duff Layer Fill PENETROMETER READING, tsf Highly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented In the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classriice lon. C TORVANE READING, tsf I Y O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, % dry weight 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED " SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % Q DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION Earth Consultants Inc. (-.uw,xlutk:W 1414 r:crs. GwkylLSts 6lirvlrauixY�uJ Scicntltits Z SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE LEGEND Proj. No. 11721 Date Mar. 2005 1 Plate Al Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: SJS T3/9/05 Date: Test Pit No.: TP -1 Excavation Contactor: Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 100' Notes: General Notes W (%j o `` �. t m o CU CO 5 rn Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 5'; Clover, Scot's broom 12.0 97 112 o 1 2 s 4 5 s 7 $ 9 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -becomes dense -becomes dense to very dense -moderate cementation SP -SM Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, dense to very dense, moist to wet Test Pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was encountered during excavation. Test Pit elevation estimated from the test pits relative to 96th Place West that was given an arbitrary elevation of 100 feet. Earth Consultants Inc. beoreohnIcWFsghxMCIologlsis&EnvhDvn"WScterutsts Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 1 Dwn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A2 ouosunace cunumuns oepicteu represent our ooservanons at the time ana location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this loq. Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: 1 SJS Date: 3/9/05 Test Pit No.: TP -2 Excavation Contactor: Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 101, Notes: General Notes W M o r a COcL t m _ aa o '� W o D cn Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4'; Sod 17.3 11.6 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL) SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -moderate to strong cementation Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. GWCCU*W Fn9flVeM GPOIV%S&Envb Dfv rima, sCkYltiss Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 Dwn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A3 .�uuaui IaLz wnunwns uCpwreu represent our ooservations at the time ana location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this loq. Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: 1 SJS Date: 3/9/05 Test Pit No.: TP -3 Excavation Contactor. Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 101, Notes: General Notes W M o a to >. C7 N L m n .: o LL ,e to o U CO CO Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4'; Scots broom 12.5 9A 1 2 3 4 5 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL) -18.0% fines SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist -becomes very dense Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Geoklchr'calE' � &Env unnc'ls`""`kt5 Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 Dwn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A4 aw ..,,jlV110 UVF %AV ,1=V1VbCnL w1 ousewaaons at the time ana wcauon of mis expioratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this ion. Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: SJS Date: 3/9/05 Test Pit No.: TP -4 Excavation Contactor: Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 103' Notes: General Notes w M o a E t m m u" o U-0 N Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 2'; Sod, Scot's broom, blackberrystarts 10.4 9.8 11.2 ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 SM Gray silty SAND, dense, moist -31.0% fines -becomes dense to very dense -decrease in fines content Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechrkal Engftx�M. Ge�s&Enviraurenralsclen,ls,s Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 Dn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A5 ouubunaue conditions oepicteo represent our oDservations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: 1 SJS Date: 3/9/05 Test Pit No.: TP -5 Excavation Contactor. Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 99, Notes: General Notes W M o n0 n T T L m n.: o W CO o V Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 3"; Sod, Scots broom 13.6 8.9 2 3 4 5 s s SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL) -24.7% fines -trace household debris SM Gray siltySAND with gravel, dense, moist -moderate to strong cementation -becomes very dense Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Ge°le�E` .Geolog`st'&umbu"`n"uwscie„tistS Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 Dwn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A6 Suosurrace conarcions aepictea represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this loci. Test Pit Log Project Name: 96th Place West Sheet of I 1 1 Job No. 11729 Logged by: 1 SJS Date: 3/9/05 Test Pit No.: TP -6 Excavation Contactor: Northwest Excavating Ground Surface Elevation: 91, Notes: General Notes W (%) o n E `� �, 0 CO L n.: p m CO o U CO >. U Surface conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 3'; Sod, Scots broom 10 .9 7.6 2 3 a s 6 7 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL) SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -becomes dense to very dense -becomes moist to wet -occasional cobble, localized light groundwater seepage -becomes moist Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage was encountered at 5.5 feet during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. C,-ofechn1cW Engftwm.Geo`oosts&E,""°""""t's"enfts Test Pit Log 96th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 11729 Dwn. ELW Date Mar. 2005 Checked SJS Date 3/23/05 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this loq. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-11729 Earth Consultants, Inc. DISTRIBUTION E-11729 4 Copies Regal Homes, LLC 2306 — 119" Street Southwest Everett, Washington 98204 Attention: Mr. Marko Liias Earth Consultants, Inc. 08/29/2010 11:25 FAX *4- Z - Fra L?011111 M. Brlu a,n.E, MS.C.E., M.B.A. Ger�dv>i�t /Civil City of Edmonds Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation K. Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 A This engineering report presents the results of a recent (September, 2010) geofechnical evaluation of Lots 7 and 8, in the K. Elise Short Plat (north of Edmonds Way). This evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds concerns regarding geotachnical slope stability and proposed house locations. 1A 002/006 • Detailed geotechnical investigation by D. Bruce, P.E. (arca 2005) • Geotechnical Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E., for completed houses in the overall short plat • Site photographs. • Proposed house layouts for Lots 7 and 8 (by hitect) The overall development was initiated many years ago. An access road with slope stabilization, overall property drainage, and erosion control measures were undertaken (by Michel Construction). Individual lots were subsequently developed by various builders. This engineer provided geotechnical criteria, designs and Inspection for the overall plat, road, stabilization rockeries, and individual houses. It is understand that the previous owner of Lots 7 and 8 has sold these to the new builder / developer • - The City of Edmonds has required an additional geotechnical evaluation to assess the stability of the slope in conjunction with the proposed house location. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS ' 317E DEVELOPMENT ' INSPECTM ' DRAWAGE • DESIGN& PERMIT . LWAL P.O. Box 55502 ' 3horefins, Washk Wn 08165 ' (208) 546.9217 1 FAX (208) SQ -8442 09/29/2010 11:25 hAX • City of Edmonds Re: K. Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 2 W Vuajuuo EVALUATION: This engineer requested that the specific footprint locations for each house (Lot 7 and Lot 8) be field -staked. This was Completed (see photographs). On a site visit, this engineer verliled dense native subgrade soil, easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity for the proposed house foundations. Small portions of the proposed house footprint would be constructed in a "sloped" portion of the lot. See plans and photographs. This engineer yMff1gd that the proposed footprint locations were M adversely Impacting slope stability -providing this engineer performs on-site inspections. The proposed houses could easily be constructed with normal excavation techniques. Compliance with City of Edmonds erosion control practices is 0908!. • The findings, recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical report for the overall development (by D. Bruce, P.E.) are valid for the proposed Lot 7 and Lot 8 houses. On-site geotechnical evaluation verified that the proposed layouts for house (Lots 7 and 8) are geotechnically stable, and do not adversely impact the property slopes. • Geotechnical inspections are MqulMd for the following Items: 1. Actual footprint layout 12do excavation 2. Inspections of excavation 3. Soil bearing verification d. Erosion control (temporary and permanent / final) 5. Any rockeries or block walls 8. Subsurface drainage 09/29/2010 11:15 FAX City of Edmonds Re: K. Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 3 tm uv4/ uuu • This engineer to provide periodic inspection reports to City of Edmonds, as well as a firm report at the successful completion of both houses. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. DMB:vIb c Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer wV11 VV IV 1 L.YI L. 4I. Vyo� 1 .�`.'+ \` .�••� (Atm •-`•`• `•�•`• • • •• ,•• 1 tennis M. Bruce, P.E. M. E., M .B.A Geotechnical/Civil E —g- ear K. ELISE &vG-L.obPMS-�j7' ct e10 LQ'r 4a off.. VJA 17,10 Gr �ctftc�:� r*-rvs Lour m !e amomts A[1111,tov" �, �o-ctrc �a�►c�� 0017 ltt; -6 LUAS tUVW SBM" -r. bXkI UG f o3 erGZ't apj 100*.-zs --- Ag kgro& Zr Lwr A& 5.F -. i> . (Taouve-r SrrAvrfrl �Y Sot I• 1 ►ud�—+c'��ea• i�cx>r�&t!�-r Zd4�a� j St�e�A� S c l�itGt"t'Y is k . �007 eje74kwk-r 14oM l k -r&- SAS 7"o 0" r,2.- r"41e'gr (�a,V��c Tfaetl oc= .S.'R=. vru Z o7', SOILS + rowwAnom • smEDEmOPMEw - INSPECTICIN - DRAINAGE - DESIGN B PERMrr • Lrraq .O. Box 85502 - Shoreline, WA 88158 - (206) 546-9217 • FAX ;206) 545-8442 E00/ZOOIm XVI 60:01. OtOZ/90/01. O i �civo sv s U. Diuuu. r.c. aVV-vt a"fI Iv N•t 4 XVJ GVVL OLOZ/90/OL